Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote

> You must not have had Drivers education then.
>

Whats drivers ed?

No such thing here in school, but you have to pass a test to get the licence
here, and handling of trucks isn't part of it.

rhys

On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:53:08 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (John Mielke) wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Joe" <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>and nothing else.
>>>
>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>
>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>
>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>
>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.


So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:

>>>>> Relativity is an established fact.

>>>>No it isn't, it's just the best we have at the momement to describe
>>>>behaviors.

>>> No, that time moves slower in a gravity well is fact, for example.
>>That's not the same statement as the one you wrote before.

> That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
> time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.

*ONE OF* Hence it is not the same as your all inclusive statement.

>>>>> Evolution is an established fact.
>>>>It is not a "fact". It's the best explaination we have at the moment.
>>> No, it is a fact; there's an accompanying explanation as to how it happens.

>>No. It's a theory, an explanation supported with evidence. Until an
>>explaination that better fits the evidence, the facts, we have evolution.

> No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
> a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
> and a theory of evolution, explaining it.

Parker makes one last ditch effort with word play. You clearly ment the later
in your initial and followup statements.

>>>>> Global warming from (at
>>>>> least the largest source) human activities is an established fact.

>>>>Gobal warming is nebulus term that is used to describe everything that
>>>>occurs with climate.
>>
>>> No, warming on a global scale.
>>
>>*sigh*. Read it again lloyd. (the climate = the climate of earth, in
>>whole or in part)

> Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."

You aren't grasping the entire context of what I wrote. With you I can't
tell if it's on purpose with your typical less than honest debate style
or if you really are that dumb. Go, back re-read, before you cut my initial
reply up and try to grasp the meaning of it. Everything that occurs with
the climate is claimed by global warming believers to be something that
supports the theory. Much like that other guy's cite tried to make
everything fit the bible, global warming believers try to make every bit
of odd weather fit the global warming, climate change scheme.

>>>>Thusly it can't be wrong. One part of the world is
>>>>getting warmer? It's global warming. Another part of the world is getting
>>>>colder? It's global warming. One critter flurishes, it's global warming.
>>>>another critter is dying off, it's global warming. so on and so on. No
>>>>matter what happens, it supports "global warming".
>>
>>> The world is getting warmer; that's why it's called _global_ warming.
>>
>>That's nice parker. Space aliens mutiliate cattle too...
>>
>>I peaked into sci.environment recently, saw people acting like the recent
>>US warm spell was global warming in action.

> You saw scientific facts and explanation.

Yet, if someone where to post that a US cold snap was a sign of no global
warming, you and others would ream that person a new asshole and say he
didn't know the difference between weather and climate. When someone
blames some odd weather on global warming because it's hotter than normal,
true believers like you say it's "scientific facts and explanation".

>>As usual didn't see you
>>chastising them. Of course should someone suggest cold weather means
>>there isn't global warming you and others jump in calling the person a
>>moron with some saying that unusual cold too is proof of 'gobal warming'.

> I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.

I see you are too stupid to grasp a simple point. The point is the behavior
of global warming believers pretty much parallels creationists trying to
make everything fit the bible.

>>>>"Global warming" isn't even well defined with regards to what it is and
>>>>what it entails, let alone being an established fact. Of course it's hard
>>>>to disprove something that isn't fixed in definition.

>>> Yes it is.
>>No, global warming theory is not fixed in any shape or form.

> It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
> evolution.

Theory != fact, and I am refering to the theory titled "gobal warming"
as you were initially. But if you want to play the same word games, wether
the temperature of the earth is going up, down, staying the same depends
on what measures you use.

> Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
> stupidity.

Hey you ****ing moron, why don't you sue the school the that sold you
a PhD? You don't have the mindset to be a real scienist. Maybe that's why
you haven't published jack ****, right parker?

>>>>> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?

>>>>I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.

>>> So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate degree
>>> in?

>>I told you long ago what my graduate degree is in.

> Then tell us again.

Parker, we've been going back and forth for years. If you don't remember
then you're too stupid to even use google.

>>> You're the church here.

>>How so parker? I'm the one with the open mind. The one who could be
>>convinced that say the theory of evolution is wrong provided suitable
>>evidence was presented. Can you say the same? I don't think so.

> The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
> That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the cause
> of disease?

Do you believe that the greys are mind controlling Bill Clinton? Do you
beat your wife?

Is that the kind of lame bull**** you want to play with parker? I can play
that game too and play it better than you if I need to.

> Try learning some science.

I know alot more than you already parker. Try playing some catch up.

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>
> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.

It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements like
the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing that started
at the same time and has increased since.

In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Sorry, radioactive dating is quite accurate.

I see you haven't kept up with science. Otherwise you might be aware
of a couple things that would have stopped you from making such a
universal statement.

FDRanger92 wrote:

> I kind of wonder about that myself. Every police officer I know has some
> amount of ammunition and road flairs in the trunk. A hard enough impact on
> the ammo can set it off, and considering the speeds at which the cars were
> hit, I would think it could contribute to a fire. I really don't think any
> car would hold up to the kind of impacts these things have had, and the
> numbers are relatively low considering the age and number of cars on the
> road.

Yet I must point out that I've never heard any of these complaints in regards
to the Caprice, which had a stronger frame and a longer wheelbase (and rear
end).

--Aardwolf.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning
some science.<CLICK>...........

Will somebody please kick the jukebox, somebody's playing that broken Parker
record on there again. ;-D

Try learning some science. Fool ! Try learning some science. Idiot ! Try
learning some science. Liar !!

Fixed it - he's rapping again

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"FDRanger92" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
: "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: >
: > Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try
: learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning some science.<CLICK>Try learning
: some science.<CLICK>...........
:
: Will somebody please kick the jukebox, somebody's playing that broken
Parker
: record on there again. ;-D
:
:
:

AWESOME, then my Duece and a half 6x6 should be darn safe. I just might
make it my daily driver instead of one of my Jeeps.

chris
g1


"Dianelos Georgoudis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> weight. See:
>
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf
>
> As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
> for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
> well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
> them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
> example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
> many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>
> In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
> unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
> vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
> is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
> SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
> people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
> others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
> numbers are:
>
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
>
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
>
> These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> even worse.
>
> The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
> cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
> heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
> thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
> is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
> passengers.
>
> Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
> Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
> SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
> SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
> disadvantages of the SUV design.
>
> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> car.
>
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.

ALL vehicles are unsafe if driven past the limits of the vehicle and the
drivers abilities.. young drivers (males especially) seem to consider
themselves invincible whether they drive an SUV (lifted and 31" BFG's) or a
Civic (lowered and oversize rims and thin rubber).. moms and dads drive
minivans.. they have become aware of their own fragility.. they carry kids
to hockey etc.. they have nothing to prove.. the distance between A and B is
down to whether they will have to backtrack to pick up stuff that the kids
have forgotten, and not how fast they can cover the distance.. quit blaming
the vehicles.. it is the people who sit behind the wheel that make the
statistics what they are..

--
History is only the past if we choose to do nothing about it..

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> AWESOME, then my Duece and a half 6x6 should be darn safe. I just might
> make it my daily driver instead of one of my Jeeps.
>
> chris
> g1
>
>
> "Dianelos Georgoudis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> > weight. See:
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf
> >
> > As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
> > for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
> > well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
> > them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
> > example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
> > many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
> >
> > In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
> > unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
> > vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
> > is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
> > SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
> > people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
> > others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
> > numbers are:
> >
> > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> > (pounds) per billion miles
> >
> > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> >
> > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> >
> > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> > even worse.
> >
> > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
> > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
> > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
> > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
> > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
> > passengers.
> >
> > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
> > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
> > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
> > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
> > disadvantages of the SUV design.
> >
> > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > car.
> >
> > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> > other vehicles on the asphalt.
>
>

Dave C. wrote:
>> Your kind of people, or your view of comfort must be different from
>> our family who managed to be comfortable in an Impreza hatchback.
>>
>> --
>> Rickety
>
> You a family of midgets? -Dave

Have we met?

--
Rickety

Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>> Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>> Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>> No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
> It also started at the same time man started flying with heavier than
> air machines. A real scienist knows better than to make statements
> like the one above as "proof" as I demonstrate with another thing
> that started at the same time and has increased since.

It can be traced back to the origins of bow and arrow.

--
Rickety

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:48:15 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>Then, obviously, that can't be the cause of global warming, can it?
>>>Since global warming happened with the lower CO2 levels,
>>
>>No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.
>
>Then where did all the ice go?
>It seems that you are denying the presence of pasdt ice ages (and the
>following global warmings).

There have been warm times and cold times in the past, with different causes.
Do you think just because, say, exercise raised your body temperature last
week, a virus could not be doing it today?

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:57:55 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
troops
>>haven't found them
>
>Let's try again:
>Hypothetical question:
>It's a given that you have illegal drugs in your house.
>The police send you a notice that they will search your house, giving
>you the dates and times. They ask you to be there as they search, in
>fact, they ask you to help them by showing them the various places
>within your house.
>Are you stupid enough to let them fund any illegal drugs?
>
We demanded Saddam to get rid of the WMD. It appears he did.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>John David Galt wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It does for me. Doesn't get much more incredible than saying we all
>>>>>came from a random association of elements... How many ordered systems
>>>>>do you know of that just spontaneously emerged from a pile of parts? I
>>>>>wish we could build cars that way! Would be much cheaper...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's only incredible if you ignore the fact that all the alternative
>>>>"explanations" require similar coincidences, ie, who created God?
>>>
>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>accurate.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. Evolution is as established fact as the existence of atoms.
>
>Only in your mind.
>

No, in something you don't know anything about -- science.

>
>>> The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>
>>
>> And you're either ignorant or a liar.
>
>Any you're both based on your past posts in this group.
>
>
>>>I believe creation is the best available explanation.
>>
>>
>> Then you're stupid too.
>
>True to form, name calling always occurs once the argument is lost.

It's not name calling when it's an accurate observation.

>
>Plonk.
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:54:22 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>OK . . . show me one CAR or MINIVAN that has comparable seating and cargo
>>>space for less money than the typical SUV?
>>
>>Any minivan. You've got to get a Suburban or Excursion to get as much
seating
>>or cargo space as a Town & Country, Sienna, Odyssey, etc.
>
>Show a mini-van that has as much seating space and as much cargo room
>as a Suburban.

Suburban -- 132 cu.ft. cargo space
Sienna -- 149
Town & Country -- 168

(From edmunds.com)

In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Joe wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>> >> >> >> Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN
>who
>> >as a
>> >> >> body
>> >> >> >> said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to
>> >> >having
>> >> >> >> them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak
>at
>> >> >best...
>> >> >> >> He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his
>reign
>> >of
>> >> >> >> terror:...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >And of course Lloyd will find some way not to accept that
>information
>> >as
>> >> >> >facts (proving what you said in your preceding post).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You'd think that Lloyd, being some kind of teacher of science,
>would
>> >> >> >understand the law of the conservation of mass. It essentially says
>> >that
>> >> >> >in a closed system, the amount (mass) of matter stays constant. If
>> >you
>> >> >> >consider the earth a closed system (we can assume that SH didn't
>> >rocket
>> >> >> >them off into space), then if SH had them a few years ago, then
>they
>> >> >> >still exist (that is, if you subtract out the ones that were used
>on
>> >his
>> >> >> >own people) - somewhere on earth. They must either still be in
>Iraq
>> >> >> >(either above or below ground), or in some other country(ies). If
>> >they
>> >> >> >were destroyed (i.e., converted to a harmless form), then that
>should
>> >be
>> >> >> >documentable or provable in some physical way. Conservation of
>mass.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Summary: In order not to violate the law of the conservation of
>mass,
>> >if
>> >> >> >they existed they would have to have been:
>> >> >> >(1) Dissipated (by use)
>> >> >> >(2) Moved and found (so far no)
>> >> >> >(3) Moved and not found found (i.e., well hidden - buried, built
>into
>> >> >> >structures - concrete maybe, or moved to another country)
>> >> >> >(4) Shot into space
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (5) Destroyed by the UN inspectors between 1991-2003, as was their
>job.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >That's funny, if the UN inspectors destroyed them, you would think
>they
>> >> >would have remembered that.
>> >>
>> >> They did. They reported this. Bush refused to believe them.
>> >
>> >And yet they kept looking for them, or are you to dumb to realize why
>they
>> >were there?
>> >
>>
>> Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US
>troops
>> haven't found them.
>
>Bingo, The UN couldn't find them, although it is well documented that they
>existed.

Not in 2003.


>That is why they were still looking, that is why we are still
>looking. We haven't found Saddam yet either, but we know he exists as well.
>Or do you think that is also a lie?

Is he as big as the WMD?

>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Was this before or after they were kicked out of
>> >> >Iraq by Saddam?
>> >>
>> >> We withdrew them prior to bombing Iraq.
>> >
>> >No, Saddam kicked them out in 1998.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >All that the world demanded was that he show them or account for
>their
>> >> >> >destruction, and he in effect refused. Then the rest of the world
>> >> >> >decided that they really didn't mean it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And now the world demands Bush prove they exist, since he claimed
>they
>> >> >did.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Since Saddam has used them several times in the past, only a totally
>> >> >braindead Liberal could claim they didn't exist.
>> >>
>> >> Bush claimed they existed in 2003. Where is the proof?
>> >>
>> >
>> >The proof is that they did exist, and Saddam could not account for what
>> >happened to them.
>>
>> LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?
>
>Turn your brain on for a minute Lloyd, I know thinking is painful for you,
>but do try. WHEN they are found, I'll be waiting for you to admit your
>ignorance, IF they are not found, you can bet they will be used someday.

So if they're found, that's proof Saddam had them. If they're not found,
that's also proof Saddam had them?

>Again, the fact that Saddam had them is well documented,

Not in 2003.


>where they are now
>is a mystery,

The UN inspectors destroyed them.


>are you reallty to dumb to understand something as simple as
>that, or is it all an act?
>BTW, yes, I do think you are dumb, you prove it with every post you make.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >Question is Where are they
>> >> >now, not do they exist.
>> >>
>> >> Prove their existence first
>> >
>> >Well documented, look it up lazy.
>> >..
>>
>> Liar. Prove they existed this year.
>
>Look it up lazy, should take you about ten minutes to find all the proof you
>can handle. It is well documented, and has been reported numerous times.
>Pull your head out of the sand, look up Halejba, he used them there. Sheesh,
>you're not only dumb, you enjoy being ignorant. Saves you the trouble of
>thinking.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >If they were destroyed, why couldn't, or wouldn't,
>> >> >Saddam provide proof of it?
>> >>
>> >> Prove you've destroyed all traces of drugs in your house.
>> >
>> >Irrelevant, I have not been ordered to destroy anything.
>>
>> No, it illustrates you cannot prove a negative.
>
>Even you know better than that dumbass. Read what I wrote, IF i had been
>ordered to destroy any drugs, or anything for that matter, I would do so in
>the presence of witnesses the government would accept, such as the UN
>inspectors were in Iraq before Saddam kicked them out in 98. You do know how
>to read don't you Lloyd?
>
>>
>>
>> >If I were, I would
>> >destroy it with legally recognized witnesses. Sasddam kept meticulous
>> >records,
>>
>> How do you know? The US does too, but our military is even missing planes
>> from its inventory.
>
>Saddams habits are well documented, look it up lazy.
>
>>
>>
>> >he could easily have provided the proof of where they were and what
>> >he did, he choose not to. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he destroyed
>them
>> >but choose not to reveal that, hopeing to use them as a bluff. Well, we
>> >caled his bluff.
>>
>> Yeah, we broke international law, invaded a country, and find out we were
>lied
>> to as the reaons.
>
>We enforced international law, which Saddam has been violating for twelve
>years. Yes, we invaded a country, and the majority of the Iraqi people are
>glad we did, of course, the Liberal media focuses on the negative, so the
>positive results are seldom reported until you talk to people who are
>actually there. And yes, I have, though a liar like you will never believe
>anyone ever tells the truth.
>
>>
>> >Thak you for once again proving yourself an ignorant, closed-minded
>Liberal.
>>
>> Thank you for once again proving yourself a war-mongering sheep of a
>> right-winger.
>
>LOL, you're a joke Lloyd. The difference between you and me is that although
>I hate the war as much as you do, I know that the price of freedom is always
>paid for with the blood of brave men and women. A warmongering sheep? When
>did you ever see a sheep go to war?
>There is a time for talk and negotiation, there is a time to back it up.
>There is also a time for you to grow up, and now is the time. The real world
>isn't all sugar and spice, sometimes you have to trim a few thorns.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Keep posting Lloyd, everytime you do it serves
>> >> >to educate all the new readers about just how ignorant you truly are.
>> >> >
>> >> >! =-----
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>a bunch of meaningless BS.
>
>I see you still won't tell us what peer reviewed journals you read Lloyd,
>nor where you have been published.
>You're no scientist, your a wannabe. Shutup and stop pretending to be
>something you will never be, you are embarrrassing the real scientist with
>your shameful behavior.
>
>
Tell us your scientific credentials, oh cowardly one. Your degree, your field
of work. I won't hold my breath though.

In article <[email protected]>,
"The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Brent P wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
>> >> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments that
>> >> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
>> >> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
>> >> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
>> >
>> >All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
>> >occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
>> >And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, radioactive dating is quite accurate.
>
>Prove it. Not to me, but to someone who chooses not to believe it.

It agrees with the ages of everything from the stars, to trees from rings.
Sorry, but I cannot give a complete course in chemistry in a usenet post.
That's like asking to prove relativity exists, or quantum effects.


>Now you
>know what arguing with you is like, you choose not to believ anything you
>don't already believe. That is why you are Usenets biggest laughing stock.

To a creationist, I guess someone who says 2 + 2 = 5 qualifies.

>
>>
>> >Matt
>> >
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (John Mielke) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 03 10:53:08 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] (John Mielke) wrote:
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 03 16:07:26 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> "Joe" <[email protected] ([email protected])> wrote:
>>>>>"CO2 is produced by human activities"
>>>>>and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>Liar. Noone has ever said that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So there was NO CO2 before humans evolved??
>>>>
>>>>There was around 280 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years, until the mid
>>>>19th century. Now there's 350 ppm, over a 25% increase.
>>>
>>>What test equipment did they use a hundred thousand years ago?
>>
>>We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.
>
>
>So you're saying that increased CO levels are NOT the sole reason for
>"global warming" - because if they were, the earth would only now be
>emerging from the ice age. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Lloyd.
>

No, they're the reason NOW. Do you suppose things may have different causes
from time to time? Do you suppose your computer might not work today because
of a virus whereas it might not have worked last week because of a faulty
chip?

>